The 1994 federal assault-weapons ban officially dies tonight. It was a bad job from the beginning, a fraudulent piece of legislation pushed through by hard-line gun-control advocates during the glory days of the Clinton era. To get it through Congress, its backers had to agree to a ten-year sunset provision. The law passes quietly into history at midnight.

Until the last minute, apologists for the ban have tried desperately to breathe life back into it, predicting doom if Congress failed to extend the law. A frantic Sarah Brady from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.) was quoted in the New York Times as warning "The assault weapons are coming, they're coming next week."

Perhaps the most pathetic attempt to spin the law's demise came from a list of medical organizations claiming in a September 7 press release that gun violence (public-health-speak for armed hoodlums on the job) is "an ongoing home-security problem." Nice try.

The medical groups were mostly the same players from the medical antigun advocacy of the 1990s. They all banded together under the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP Network), run out of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. The group includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and Doctors Against Handgun Injury, all groups whose official policies call for doctors to urge their patients to get rid of their guns.

So strong is the denial of the HELP network activists that they will continue to believe the world is ending, even though most Americans don't even know the law has expired. Here are a few predictions, based on the psychology of criminals and gun-control activists:

Gun crimes committed with "assault weapons" won't increase. Semiautomatic rifles never did catch on in a big way with career criminals, because they are too difficult to carry concealed. As a National Institute of Justice study noted in July, using a broad definition of the term, assault weapons were used in fewer than eight percent of gun crimes even before the ban. The firearm of choice for armed criminals has always been the high-quality handgun.

The HELP crowd and other antigunners will nevertheless maintain to the end that the ban's end will touch off a crime wave of epic proportions. The core delusion here is that all guns are evil. Gun-control advocates will therefore refuse to accept that their condemnation of "assault weapons" has no basis in fact. Even though as physicians they are trained in the scientific method, they will carry this conviction to the ends of their flat earth.

As the assault-weapon panic fades, gun-control activists will find another kind of gun to demonize. In fact, they already have. On California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk lies a bill to ban .50 caliber rifles, a target rifle fancied by well-to-do hobbyists. Gun controllers have ginned up a myth of .50-caliber rifles as the new weapon of choice for terrorists, just as assault weapons were supposedly preferred by criminals. In fact, there is only one reported case of a .50-caliber rifle ever having been used in a crime in the United States. Golf clubs are more frequently used as crime weapons than .50 caliber rifles.

Antigunners will deliberately continue to misrepresent "assault weapons" as machine guns. CNN did it back in May 2003, when it ran a piece on assault weapons but showed video of a machine gun. CNN was forced to issue a retraction when National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre pointed out the obvious lie.

ABC News did it again last week in a World News Tonight advocacy-news piece by Bill Redeker on the expiration of the ban. The segment quoted Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, who warned "we'll probably have more of these weapons in the United States than there are in Iraq in the hands of insurgents." Not true. Iraqi insurgents shoot fully automatic military rifles — the real thing. American target shooters and collectors whose guns were banned by the 1994 law only want to shoot their semiautomatic rifles, one bullet with each trigger pull.

Redeker further tried to mislead viewers into thinking machine guns are legal again by showing video footage of a 1997 North Hollywood shootout. In one of the relatively few modern crimes involving machine guns, two bank robbers fired on police with fully automatic rifles, not with the guns now legal again.

Intentionally misrepresenting assault weapons as machine guns is nothing new for the gun-control lobby. But if the public mood about the issue is any indication, the lie is exposed. Congressional leaders held fast to the end, citing their constituents' desires in letting the law die its programmed death.

The experiment failed. The myth of the deadly assault weapon can now be laid to rest, a victim of its own falsity.

— Timothy Wheeler, M.D., is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute.

There are some weapons which need to be regulated, but their criteria were absolutely ridiculous. I don't care if someone has a rifle with a pistol grip and a large magazine, that's just a souped-up rifle. Fully automatic machine guns, yeah, those should be kept out of some peoples' hands. "Assault weapons" was far too vague a term and too loosely defined.

__________________One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough

Nothing gets past Ritt there. Well, maybe that sentence could read "Coincidentally, guns are the topic of discussion." but that would be cranking the I.Q. threshhold a tad too high. Being off topic is not something I am guilty of in my preceding post.

Banning "assault" weapons would be like banning "fast" cars! Of course you aren't going to see an Indy or Formula 1 cars on the 10 Freeway, just like people should not own Gatling Guns or Anti Aircraft Missile Launchers. But there are 'stock' cars that can easily do 150 or more that can be bought off the Show room floor. Why? Who needs to go that fast? Who needs an AK-47? Because there are tracks you can take you car on and see how fast it can go. And because sometimes it is fun to go out on a range and use something other than a 22 or a .38 pistol. Every single firearm ever made has been used in an "assault" of some force. Shoot, even a box cutter or a sharpened plastic knife can be used to slit someone's throat. The assault weapons ban was WAY too vague, and poorly written. We have thousands of firearm laws on the books, and no amount of laws will keep the firearms out of the hands of the bad guys. So it comes down to the simple question, "Should law abiding citizen's be denied the right to own some type of firearm protection?"

__________________
"Nature demands of us that we pay attention." Lee H. Whittlesey in Death in Yellowstone

I don't care if someone has a rifle with a pistol grip and a large magazine, that's just a souped-up rifle.

Yeah, that's more of a "Why-don't-you-come-over-for-tea weapon" than an "Assault weapon". It's a gun. It's primary function is to assault somebody/thing. (Defend, some would say. Via assualt, I would reply.) I'm sorry, but the terminology on both sides of this argument gives me the giggles.

Incidentally, despite otherwise conservative leanings, I tend to support most gun control measures.

Personally, I would rather have people owning rifles/shotguns/assault weapons then handguns. The rare(ish) cases of people going out and commiting crimes with them is going to be far less then the horrific accident/suicide rate among children and teens from handguns.

Attica. Guns are pretty much illegal in the UK, unless for certain types for certain purposes etc. And that's the way we like it, thank you. If you're happy to have guns freely available in your country, that's fine, but you're making wrong assumptions for countries elsewhere.

__________________"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." - Neitzche

So Kerry all over TV yesterday was slamming Bush on allowing the assault weapons ban to die, even though it was out of his hands and even though all the democrats wouldnt touch the subject either.
He waits til the day the bill is set to expire and he starts frothing at the mouth.

His staff freaks out becuase gun owners do know that an assault weapon is not an automatic weapon like an ak 47 or an uzi as Kerry is describing.

CNN CROSSFIRE HOST AND KERRY CONSULTANT PAUL BEGALA: "I think politically it’s unwise for John Kerry to be going after the gun control issue. Honestly, I think it’s a political mistake."

ED ROGERS: "He should listen to you."

BEGALA: "He should, but he doesn't." (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 9/13/04)

Im sure Kerry is glad he has CNN broadcasting the inside info on his campaign since he hired them.

Laugh, never killed anythig with a firearm until I was 10 or so. Since the age of 4 I shot firearms for "recreation" with my father. Skeet shooting, target shooting, etc. To this day the number of rounds I put through a firearm for recration or work far exceeds the number of rounds I have fired to "kill stuff." The ratio is easily millions to one. Good critical thinking there Korast, talk about something you actually KNOW something about next time.

Attica. Guns are pretty much illegal in the UK, unless for certain types for certain purposes etc. And that's the way we like it, thank you. If you're happy to have guns freely available in your country, that's fine, but you're making wrong assumptions for countries elsewhere.

You are looking at a duel citizen from N. Ireland, I can indeed make judgements about Britain as my buisness. As I said guns are pretty much banned in Britain, so crime rates soared.

What has the gun ban really done for the UK? Criminals can easily get guns, but the average citizen can't own one to tell a burgler to get out of the house.

Despite being the overwhelmingly liberal hippie I usually am... I support a good deal of freedom with gun ownership. History proves that complete gun control leads to more problems than it fixes. But with that said...

Banning "assault" weapons would be like banning "fast" cars! Of course you aren't going to see an Indy or Formula 1 cars on the 10 Freeway, just like people should not own Gatling Guns or Anti Aircraft Missile Launchers. But there are 'stock' cars that can easily do 150 or more that can be bought off the Show room floor. Why? Who needs to go that fast? Who needs an AK-47? Because there are tracks you can take you car on and see how fast it can go. And because sometimes it is fun to go out on a range and use something other than a 22 or a .38 pistol. Every single firearm ever made has been used in an "assault" of some force. Shoot, even a box cutter or a sharpened plastic knife can be used to slit someone's throat. The assault weapons ban was WAY too vague, and poorly written. We have thousands of firearm laws on the books, and no amount of laws will keep the firearms out of the hands of the bad guys. So it comes down to the simple question, "Should law abiding citizen's be denied the right to own some type of firearm protection?"

Would you have anything against letting certified firing ranges allow you to rent a gun, any gun at all, so you can shoot to your hearts content, even if you were prohibited by law from owning those guns?

I'll outline a few other things then I have to go.

Handguns-

Pros: Most likely to be purchased for self-defense. Easiest to use, inexpensive.

Cons: By far the weapon of choice for criminals. A handgun in the home is relatively likely to injure someone living in that home. Can be concealed easily. Has no other purpose than shooting human beings.

Rifles/shotguns-

Pros: Require a certain amount of training to use. Are by far used mostly for hunting. Lacks as much human-killing potential as a handgun (can't fire so fast, or in close quarters). Can't be concealed easily.

Cons: Inadequate for defense. A trained user can put it to deadly use killing people in a crowded area (the proverbial lunatic in a bell tower), much more devastating than a handgun.

Assault rifles (AK47 M16 Uzi or other variants)-

Pros: Possibly the only weapons to which the "defense against authoritarian government" argument can even remotely apply.

Cons: One of these in the wrong hands can wreak utter havoc. Nobody should be allowed to privately own something designed with the express intent of killing as many people as possible in as short a period of time.

Conclusion:

Keep the big guns in the hands of law enforcement and military, and heavily regulated firing ranges. Allow ownership of rifles and handguns with a permit, but limit some types (who really needs a Desert Eagle .50?) without strict regulation. Magazine capacity should be something to limit but don't overdo it (since the real criminals will find a way around that anyway).

Guns are a necessary evil, as sad as it is. One thing I might like to see is more firing ranges run by law enforcement agencies, especially if they'll let people try out more exotic types.

Like I said, the ban was shitty, but at least it was an attempt to do something about the issue. Frankly, I don't know why they made such a crappy law to handle the issue. It's pretty easy to simply make a list of the most common weapons out there right now and decide on the specific guns.

__________________One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough

Its a very difficult issue for me because, even though I'm a liberal, I have pretty much always been against most gun control. However, last year my friend ended his life w/ a .44 that his dad kept in the bedstand. Handguns really should not be allowed in the home in my opinion. They are by far the most dangerous type of weapon to everyone. Anyone willing to use an assault weapon to massacre people is probly going to find a way to accomplish their sick goals anyway. Everyone knows the stat that a handgun is far more likely to injure an innocent w/ a handgun then a burglar..so the point sounds trite.

Think of this too. If a robber comes into your house with a gun it is most likely to scare you into handing over everything you have or to defend himself. Most robbers don't want to commit a murder. Most are there to take your crap and go, as silently as possible. If a robber sees you with a gun then they are much more likely to use theirs. If they don't have one, ok you saved your stuff, but in all cases you still have to be willing to end a human life. Also, a much better form of self defense is a dog. Big or small, a barking dog is going to scare off a vast majority of criminals. Dog's do 3 things. 1) Big dogs can harm a burglar 2) All dogs can make a lot of noise that alerts neighbors and the homeowner, exactly what the burglar doesn't want 3) A dog bite is a damning piece of evidence in any sort of case where the police are trying to prove if someone was in the house. Getting biten by a dog can trace someone to a house very easily, not to mention possible blood left in the house from the bite.

I see no viable reason to keep a handgun in your house. I support owning them and keeping them at a range/locker. I myself want to buy one now that I'm legal, but I would never keep it where anyone but myself can get to it. Before I moved off to college we had a 90lb dog who isn't very aggressive, but barks like hell at night for anything. I already saw one guy running away from my dad's car at night when the dog started barking. Much better then going out and waving a gun at him.

Would you have anything against letting certified firing ranges allow you to rent a gun, any gun at all, so you can shoot to your hearts content, even if you were prohibited by law from owning those guns?

Yes, nothing like the pride of ownership and developing a feel for the way YOUR firearm shoots.

I'll outline a few other things then I have to go.

Handguns-

Pros: Most likely to be purchased for self-defense. Easiest to use, inexpensive.

Cons: By far the weapon of choice for criminals. A handgun in the home is relatively likely to injure someone living in that home. Can be concealed easily. Has no other purpose than shooting human beings.

Disagree, more people drown and die each year than from accidentally discharged firearms. To use effectivly a handgun has a much steeper learning curve than rifles and shotguns. The can and are used regularly for target shooting and even hunting, my brother got his first dear with a single shot pistol.

Rifles/shotguns-

Pros: Require a certain amount of training to use. Are by far used mostly for hunting. Lacks as much human-killing potential as a handgun (can't fire so fast, or in close quarters). Can't be concealed easily.

Cons: Inadequate for defense. A trained user can put it to deadly use killing people in a crowded area (the proverbial lunatic in a bell tower), much more devastating than a handgun.

Rifles and shotguns will kill more more quicklyt and effectively than your average handgun. Your average deer rifle will punch through my class 3 body armor like a hot knife through butter. There is a reason police carry shotguns, EXCELLENT psycological tool (there mere racking of it will grab EVERYONE'S attention) and you can do things with a shotgun you cannot do with rifled weapons.
Assault rifles (AK47 M16 Uzi or other variants)-

Pros: Possibly the only weapons to which the "defense against authoritarian government" argument can even remotely apply.

Cons: One of these in the wrong hands can wreak utter havoc. Nobody should be allowed to privately own something designed with the express intent of killing as many people as possible in as short a period of time.

Agreed, not without extensive background checks if you meant fully automatic weapons, do not see a problem with semi-auto versions.

Conclusion:

Keep the big guns in the hands of law enforcement and military, and heavily regulated firing ranges. Allow ownership of rifles and handguns with a permit, but limit some types (who really needs a Desert Eagle .50?) without strict regulation. Magazine capacity should be something to limit but don't overdo it (since the real criminals will find a way around that anyway).

Guns are a necessary evil, as sad as it is. One thing I might like to see is more firing ranges run by law enforcement agencies, especially if they'll let people try out more exotic types.

You will NEVER see this, too much liability to the law enforcement agency to run a range.

Like I said, the ban was shitty, but at least it was an attempt to do something about the issue. Frankly, I don't know why they made such a crappy law to handle the issue. It's pretty easy to simply make a list of the most common weapons out there right now and decide on the specific guns.

Pistol grip or no, high capacity mag or no, anyone with good training will be effective with a weapon. Overall, the ban was worthless because it was too broad (I do agree some of those weapons didn't need to be around).

I own one pistol and one rifle. I will use deadly force on any intruder in my home that will not immediately surrender, or if I see he has a weapon. If he's forced an entry into my home, he's already proven he's willing to harm anyone inside to accomplish his goals.

I will not be a victim. And I will not allow my family to be victims if I have the means to resist (meaning I can still breathe).

Incidentally, I still plan to buy a National Match AR-15, commonly referred to as a "black gun", for competition shooting. May be easier to get now, or cheaper.

__________________Segis
Retired Storm Warden of AfflictionThe Second Amendment, the original Homeland Security Act!